MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6947568337 · doi:10.3886/icpsr36744

Health Reform Monitoring Survey, United States, First Quarter 2016

2016· dataset· en· W6947568337 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueICPSR Data Holdings · 2016
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Health careRespondentGovernment (linguistics)Health insuranceMental healthMedicaidHealth policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2013, the Urban Institute launched the Health Reform Monitoring Survey (HRMS), a survey of the nonelderly population, to explore the value of cutting-edge, Internet-based survey methods to monitor the Affordable Care Act (ACA) before data from federal government surveys are available. Topics covered by the 11th round of the survey (first quarter 2016) include self-reported health status, type of health insurance coverage, access to and use of health care, out-of-pocket health care costs, health care affordability, health insurance literacy, feelings of unfair treatment by doctors and other health care providers, experience with health insurance marketplaces, awareness of ACA provisions, and rating of neighborhood characteristics. Additional information collected by the survey includes age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, education, race, Hispanic origin, United States citizenship, housing type, home ownership, internet access, income, employment status, employer size, body mass index, and whether the respondent reported an ambulatory care sensitive condition or a mental or behavioral condition.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0130.007
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.286
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.161 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICPSR Data HoldingsSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207